Hong Kong's Town Planning Board in need of reform
There is no more valuable public asset in Hong Kong than land. It and the property market are the biggest generators of income and as such, the government defends use and development.
There is no more valuable public asset in Hong Kong than land. It and the property market are the biggest generators of income and as such, the government defends use and development. That inevitably leads to conflicts with Hongkongers who want planning with an eye on livability. A High Court judge's ruling against the Town Planning Board raises questions as to whether changes to the system are needed.
In his judgment last week, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung contended that the way the board's meetings were conducted was flawed. Ruling in favour of the Real Estate Developers Association over a 2011 refusal by the board to adjust plans for projects in five districts, he cited "procedural unfairness" and "tainted decisions". Members were seen as being insufficiently appraised of circumstances and meetings unduly long. With billions of dollars often at stake, a review seems necessary.
But it is not just the interests of powerful developers that have to be considered. The growing interest in Hong Kong's development means that many of the board's decisions are controversial - the government's plans for new towns in the northeast New Territories and conversion of a house on narrow Lugard Road into a boutique hotel are just two among many. The board, although a statutory authority, has long been criticised by some in the community for being too close to the government. Its members are chosen by the chief executive and the chairman and heads of its urban and rural planning committees are senior civil servants. Of the 36 members, 30 are non-official, being from various sectors of society, and are unpaid. Papers considered by the board are prepared by the Planning Department, which also provides legal advice.
The board's work has to be fair, transparent and in line with public expectations. How its members are chosen, the conduct of meetings, independence of decisions and protection against conflicts of interest are crucial matters. A review of the system is needed; perhaps reform is necessary.